4 ms·

I think the strongest argument that AGI has been achieved is when ChatGPT vN can write ChatGPT vN+1 and have it be a Pareto improvement. Can we call it the User

• idiotsecant 4y ago
  In that case, I don't think we're provably intelligent just yet!
  • User23 4y ago
    At least some human beings manage to produce new human beings that are at least approximately Pareto improvements by using a well chosen training set. There is a long term trend towards the mean though so we're not likely to see a biologically based singularity.
    • idiotsecant 4y ago
      I think we already had a biological singularity! Many of them in fact! I think it's just likely that we were the final biological singularity. I think a lot of the time we think of singularity as 'the point at which the rules break because evolution of some parameter is infinite" but I think really what this term means is the point at which current rules are incapable of predicting the evolution of the system, resulting in an apparent infinity. That infinity probably is not physically meaningful, but it might as well be from the point of view of an actor before the new rules are known. When we evolved from ape-ish things capable of only the most primitive communication into things capable of transmitting complex information about our world across generations we hit a rate of technological growth that might as well have been a vertical line compared to the previous history of life on earth. When single-cellular life managed to capture mitochondria and unlock incredible chemical energy reserves that was another similarly vertical line in the complexity of life. I'd say our history is a series of singularities that only look like gradual progress from the point of view of our own pseudo-infinity. We are a step in the process of the universe understanding itself but we aren't the last step, it would be silly to think so, given what we know about past leaps in the entropy creation rate of life.
• ben_w 4y ago
  The terms are not very consistently applied, but I would call that ASI rather than AGI. Personally I think the General in AGI is real-valued (or possibly vector-valued) and definitely not a mere Boolean yes-or-no, and therefore it's fine to say ChatGPT is an AGI because it has the generality of "text on most subjects in most languages". Well… sort of. I'm not sure about the Intelligence part of the label though, because it's making up for being very inefficient with the training set by running on hardware that outpaces synapses to the degree to which marathon runners outpace continental drift. But this leads to the question "Does a submarine swim?" (I.e. does it matter?)
  • PunchTornado 4y ago
    my experience with anything I ask it is garbage. ok, in that case it is an AGI of value 0.0000000001
    • ben_w 4y ago
      Really? All garbage? Both of these conversations contain zero cherry-picking. Code works, solves what I wanted it to solve. I don't speak most of the languages in the video, but bits I could follow looked good to me. https://github.com/BenWheatley/Studies-of-AI/blob/main/coding-assistant/daily-plan-parser-conversation.md https://github.com/BenWheatley/Studies-of-AI/blob/main/codin... https://youtu.be/XX2rbcrXblk https://youtu.be/XX2rbcrXblk Also used it to update the style on my website. Its solution has one bug that shows up on Chrome but not Safari, and was otherwise better than I could've done Googling because I didn't know the search term.
• x86x87 4y ago
  One thing that bothers me when it comes to AI is how human centric the approach to AI is. We, humans, are the measuring stick. Fundamentally this approach is flawed. Can one really talk about the intelligence without talking about the environment in which that intelligence manifests itself?
  • ben_w 4y ago
    Sure we can talk about intelligence, we have done for at least a century, but you're right the definition we use is anthropomorphic and almost certainly missing important things — as demonstrated by all the times computers did a task, widely regarded as emblematic of high intellect, at super-human levels, only for humanity to collectively shrug and say "not intelligence".
    • sebzim4500 4y ago
      This cycle of 1. AI will never be able to do X because that requires real intelligence/creativity 2. AI does X to a (super)human level 3. X does not require real intelligence/creativity, it is just search/statistics/etc. with increasingly difficult values of X can not possibly continue forever, right? And yet, it seems to happen so reliably.
      • PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        problem is that at step 2, the super-human performance frequently turns out to have massive holes in it. Playing games with fixed rules is one exception, but most other things that "AI cannot do but now does" always come with a shift in our expectations. I would say that the very best "AI doing amazing shit" tends to be things never discussed in Ye Olde Literature. Google Maps is a premier example.
        • x86x87 4y ago
          Yes it's superhuman for a very narrow set of well defined tasks. We observe it and claim that AI is taking over.